On 5/8/2015 8:19 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Punting on this as an
"implementation issue" leaves a pretty substantial hole in whatever
gets rolled out. To me it's like buying a car with a completely
absent steering mechanism, and you have to do the research to figure
out which one fits and works for you, and probably build it yourself too.
I don't get the metaphor. Who will buy a car with a steering problem?
Anyway....
It is an implementation issue. You can even use RFC6541 if you wish
to illustrate there was a lack of adoption. The Interop report should
research why. We can probably say:
- Short or Long Term adoption of publishing records,
- Requires DKIM Code Change,
- Migration issue. ADSP was implemented and then abandoned,
- It was labeled experimental.
It was a moving target. ADSP was being played down. With ATPS-Rev04,
no DKIM code change was required. Running code is in the field. You
might want to say (repeat) why the public service domains have a
harder time at publishing records or can use this technology.
At a minimum, we need to describe detailed requirements of this
component.
Probably as implementation notes, but it shouldn't be a barrier.
I do believe Functional Requirements should be defined because there
are at least 3-4 proposals and I am about to throw in there one or two
myself.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
